Current process: CHURN file
This is a bit of an outlier, because it is not technically inline with zettelkasten method per se. However, I have found it incredibly useful, and it could be integrated into a zk with a little work I think.
I've started keeping an ongoing document called CHURN. It is organized by indentation, so it can be folded or hoisted to only show relevant sections by the two editors I use on it most frequently (vim and taskpaper). I just dump in there anything I think of, and freely re-organize (move up and down, indent, create headers and groups). I keep tasks in taskpaper syntax, but essential to the model is the fact that anything can go in. The plan is to weekly move out of that file anything done/no longer relevant into my already-extant Weekly File ([[2023-W52]]), and if anything develops enough to be a stand-alone note, move it there with a link back to the Week file. Thus, every week I have a document with just what's front-of-mind at the moment, but everything I came up with randomly still gets filed, and ideas that withstand development have the space to do so.
My current file includes sections for various work projects, my novel in progress, several sections about ongoing thoughts working through some psychological issues, and a collection of books on a topic for a friend who was asking my recommendations. Folding by section allows me to focus on a particular thing, but still have the freedom to re-file easily. Searching by taskpaper tag (though any unique string would work just as well, depending on your tools) allows me to get a cross-section in any other arbitrary way (obviously, taskpaper-like things like @due or @start dates, but, also, non-task oriented things like the tag I have for my partner indicating conversations I've had with them).
There are two major advantages so far. First, it conquers the Filing Problem, where there's enough overhead in knowing where to write something that I don't write it in a timely enough manner. Just toss it in, and it'll naturally get put where it needs after you have banged on it enough that you know where that is.
The second is that, unlike Daily Notes, this gives an ongoing way of developing thoughts over several days. I found with putting random things in Daily Notes there was a discontinuity of thoughts. I used to do one day per heading in an emacs org-mode file, and I missed the sense of continuity that came with that. This allows that, and also has less psychological pressure to divide things by date (If I care about dates I can toss in a date stamp or a UID easily enough).
I re-emphasize: the essential quality to this is the psychological freedom it provides. If your mind works fine by default in such a way that you don't need that, you probably won't get much out of this. But if you suffer from pre-editing, self-censorship, or ADHD-related inability to hold context, you might find it worth a try.
Howdy, Stranger!
Comments
A couple of thoughts:
@mediapathic said:
This seems like the "One Big Text File" approach in the discussion "Zettelkasten vs One Big Text File" (November 2020).
Whether you use one big text file or more granular units, it's extremely important (at least for me) to be able to start writing immediately without having to file, title, locate, or classify the item in any way. One aspect of Denote for Emacs (mentioned in this forum a week ago) that I found strange and unhelpful is that it asks for a title and keywords by default before you can start writing a new item. Even though you can ignore those prompts, it still adds too much friction before you can start writing, in my opinion.
Defrictionizing the initiation of capturing ideation is a worthwhile objective that yields the benefits of a smooth and relaxed seizing of the idea.
I use Keyboard Maestro and a template in my ZK for about as frictionless capturing as I can.
From any application at any time, ⌃⌥⇧⌘N, I, and a note is created with today's UUID, YAML filled in, title, Subatomic automatically placed, and the cursor positioned so all I have to do is start typing. If I get another idea on the same day, Keyboard Maestro reopens today's "Idea Storm."
These notes are revisited in my review process. Mostly, I scavenge any idea with wheels, starting a zettel, trashing the "what the hell was I thinking" scribbles.
Will Simpson
I must keep doing my best even though I'm a failure. My peak cognition is behind me. One day soon I will read my last book, write my last note, eat my last meal, and kiss my sweetie for the last time.
kestrelcreek.com
@mediapathic said:
Above I likened @mediapathic's CHURN file to the "One Big Text File" approach, but I should have noted that it's "One Big Text File" per week because in practice it gets cleared out weekly (if I understand correctly), not "One Big Text File To Rule Them All".
I imagine this would fit nicely with the GTD "weekly review".
@Andy yep, you corrected the misconception before I had a chance to. In some ways, what I'm trying to do here is the advantages of One Big Text File without the disadvantages of rigidity. Thanks for the reminder of that thread, though, it was a useful check against poor assumptions on my part.
Sascha mentioned in that thread Christian's method of Using outlines to write and I think that's also a useful parallel. It's kind of like if someone asked me "How are you doing?" and if I wanted to write a few thousand words answering that, this would be the outline.
And, yes, I didn't specify in the original post, but I do a GTD-style weekly review. In the short time I've been using this method it's radically improved that process, because I have everything in one place, easy to scan, and it's easier make connections between things that, in the moment, were not directly related in my thoughts.
How much can we push the boundaries of our minds?
Disclaimer: I lost my way in writing this reply. But I hope, it is still interesting.
It sounds very similar to what I do with my second brain in TaskPaper.
I think this is very correct:
For physical training, I have an inventory of stimuli that need to be hit (and to avoid) that allows me to check for completeness. Completeness means that given you are aware of your training goals, you don't leave any gaps in your approach.
I am very sure that such an inventory can be created for knowledge work also. One of the items of that list is this free platform to think.
The challenge then becomes how to truly optimise for the desired output. One example of this challenge regarding the Zettelkasten Method is to set up your habits and your workflow in a way that trains your brain alongside your system. One of the failure points is that the complexity (sometimes the complicatedness) of the system increases more than your cognitive capacity to deal with it. A simple use case is overcollecting and overusing linking without making sure that you are not just engaging with the method superficially. If the system will outgrow your ability to navigate in it and then imposes a cognitive overhead that occupies too much of your cognitive capacities.
The danger I see with such a CHURN-file is that it might add an easy way out of the current challenge, and therefore hinders the progress of the development of an integrated thinking environment. One of the benefits of the Zettelkasten Method lies in the struggle because it trains your brain, which then opens up new possibilities to engage with material. Too much avoidance of the struggle could mean a loss of this benefit of the Zettelkasten Method.
I want to highlight that I am just talking about risk. There is no empirical evidence to access the risk structure (the stochastics and the events themselves). Such elaborations are further clouded by the fog of extremely delayed effects. I am experiencing effects on my thinking that I attribute to years of working in a specific way.
To make a last comparison: It takes years to actually change how your body works. But if you invest those years, you can truly alter your bodily functions (epigenetically). When I was in my late 20s and early 30s, I had such a high muscle mass and low body fat that many don't achieve with steroids, while at the same time being exceptionally athletic (I still can jump 5 stairs at a time for 30 minutes non-stop) and having very high endurance (my resting heart rate was 40-42). I didn't start as one of those athletic super talents. I just combined intermittent fasting, certain training modes, a cyclical ketogenic diet and cold training and stuck to it for years (e.g. fasted sprinting to balance your leptin, so the low bodyfat does not wreck your hormones). I am very confident that I can replicate this process with any healthy 20-year-old. It just takes a couple of years of dedication. I don't try to brag, but just use me as an example because I have first person experience and not need to rely on hearsay.
I think the Zettelkasten Method can be part of a similar process to change your mind. I don't claim that the Zettelkasten Method is sufficient to transform a mental vegetable into a god of mental acuity. But I think that there is a path, for which the Zettelkasten Method can provide the foundation, to train the mind in ways we don't think are possible now. There are hints to be found everywhere, from IQ-Training to vastly accelerating learning.
Just witness the improvements in the athletic world:
The athletic world as the incentive structure put in place for massive improvements (drugs and material included...). Just imagine what would be possible if people would take knowledge work that seriously. Or if more people upgrade their passion to an obsession. (recording all your memories?)
Coming back to the topic: I like it, use a similar technique myself, but am cautious of unwanted side-effects.
PS: I will re-write this into a post.
I am a Zettler
@Sascha I started to write a long response to this, in order to clarify my thoughts, but after some clarification it boils down to this, I think:
I absolutely think you have a valid concern here, but I wasn't clear enough in my methodology to clarify that I'm already avoiding it. If any idea extends to the point where it's worth keeping, it still goes through the regular development process and gets a note of its own. So, to the extent that I am pushing through the challenges you indicate, I still am. From the perspective of those challenges, this method can be seen as an inbox with a bunch of affordances that prevent it from being a place where ideas go to die (like many inboxes). It's much more than that for me, but in terms of what you're referring to I think that's a fair comparison.
That said, in the post version of this, I challenge you to better define the challenges you refer to. Your reply is long on analogy and short on description of the problem you're addressing.